Erection of front infill extension/porch

Appeal Decision by P Terceiro BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012824 117 Becontree Avenue, Dagenham, Barking and Dagenham RM8 2UJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Ruslan Lakymchuk against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Barking & Dagenham. • The application Ref is 26/00567/HSE. • The development proposed is the erection of front infill extension/porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 17 August 2026, and I have had regard to this in my decision. The main parties were invited to provide comments on the revised Framework and the comments received have been taken into account in my determination of the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the Becontree Estate as a non-designated heritage asset. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a mid-terrace dwelling located within the Becontree Estate, which is identified by the Council as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Its significance derives, in part, from its development as Homes for Heroes constructed in the period 1921 to 1934 and, at the time, it was the largest municipal estate in the world. 5. Many elements of the built form in the Becontree Estate are similar, contributing to the character of the area. These elements include shared entrances to the homes, often with recessed porches, which support a sense of community. The terrace within which the appeal site is located is a typical example of this, and therefore it contributes to the sense of uniformity of the area. Given its recessed porch, the appeal dwelling makes a positive contribution to the significance of the NDHA. 6. This part of Becontree Avenue is typically characterised by terraced housing, and although some properties do not have front porches, paired entrances containing recessed doors to each attached property remain prevalent. As such, the original detail of a recessed and shared open porch remains a discernible feature that makes a positive contribution to the street scene and wider estate. Appeal Decision 6012824 2 7. The Becontree Estate Supplementary Planning Document & Design Code 2026 (SPD) seeks to ensure that new development responds positively to the Estate’s history, enhancing and using its character where possible to strengthen its identity. Amongst others, the SPD recognises the historic and aesthetic distinctiveness of the shared recessed porches, and the positive contribution of this feature towards the character of the Becontree Estate. 8. The proposed front infill extension would result in the loss of a portion of the recessed porch, which is shared with No 119 Becontree Avenue. This would create a sense of enclosure within the recessed space and would harm the façade, thereby leading to an unacceptable degradation of the building’s intrinsic character. 9. Moreover, the siting of the extension would disrupt the distinctive pattern of openings observed within the wider terrace, thereby harming its visual symmetry and historic layout. Consequently, the proposal would pay little regard to the Estate’s original design principles and would result in the loss of an architectural feature which contributes positively to the street scene, and to the wider Becontree Estate. 10. I observed in my site visit that some properties within the vicinity do not have a recessed porch, including in the terrace opposite where none of the properties displays this feature. However, I have not been made aware of the planning history for those properties and therefore it is unclear whether this is their original form, or if planning permission was required should any porches have been infilled. Be as it may, instances where the shared recessed porches have been partly infilled are not common in the vicinity. I am not persuaded, therefore, that there is a precedent for this proposal. 11. Thus, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the significance of the NDHA. I attach significant weight to this harm, as it would relate to a key aspect of the significance of the wider estate. Policy HE7(2) of the Framework informs us that where a development proposal would harm the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal and a balanced judgement made, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the NDHA. 12. The appellant indicates the proposal would improve the dwelling’s energy efficiency. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that this could not be achieved in another, less harmful manner. There would be some economic benefits brought about through the construction phase. These benefits attract limited weight and, in my judgement, fall short of overcoming the significant weight I attach to the harm to the NDHA. 13. Thus, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to the Becontree Estate as a NDHA. The scheme would be contrary to Policies HC1 and D4 of The London Plan 2021, and Policies SPP6, DMD1, DMD4 and DMD5 of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham Local Plan 2020-2037 (2024), which promote high-quality design, support development that respects and complements the character of the area, and seek to conserve the historic environment, amongst other things. Appeal Decision 6012824 3 Conclusion 14. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. P Terceiro INSPECTOR